Poetry and 'Most People'

I don't like the "blame the teachers" response, since that seems to be everyone's response to pretty much everything that goes wrong in the world. Teachers get a lot of heat for everything kids and eventually adults do. There ARE teachers who are like this, yes, although the bigger issue (as was mentioned earlier in the thread) is that poetry is not considered necessary anymore. The humanities as a whole are not as important to the current educational climate. It's all about STEM, because STEM makes money and produces results. (While I don't disagree that there are benefits to STEM, I do think it's short-sighted to view those "results" as the only thing kids gain from education. I think most writers recognize the value of the humanities and what we gain from learning them.)

I would argue the biggest challenge facing poetry - and honestly most arts in general - is that it's work. It's a lot harder to sit down with Keats or Tennyson than it is to sit down with an easily digestible book. Let's face it - reading itself is work. I love The Walking Dead comic and have had numerous people ridicule me for reading it when I've pointed out things the show doesn't do as well as the source material. It's 32 pages a month with pictures and that's too much work for a lot of people. I've seen people complain about episodes of Game of Thrones where there has been no sex or violence; they call these episodes boring and say it's all talking. People, as a whole, don't like to work for things. They don't like to think. This isn't true of all people, but sadly, it's true for a growing number of people.

I love reading the "old" poetry - the Keats, the Tennyson, the Frost, etc. It's modern poetry I steer clear of, the poetry that seems to be just a bunch of words tossed together. When I went to school, our teachers introduced us to all kinds of poetry and poetic forms, letting us investigate and experiement - and I loved it. And I continued to read various kinds of poetry - until it seemed like it all turned to such esoteric nonsense, with authors bristling at the stupidity of readers who didn't catch their brilliance.

So I think it's like Picasso and Rembrandt - hate one, love the other, but have nothing against paintings in general.

I think you are making rather a blanket characterization of "modern poetry" based on a stereotype -- and it is a characterization that in fact applies to a tiny, tiny minority of it.

I've seen very little poetry that was just "a few words tossed together" -- or at least, very little of such stuff that anyone (other than perhaps the author) was touting as any good.

CassandraW said:

I think you are making rather a blanket characterization of "modern poetry" based on a stereotype -- and it is a characterization that in fact applies to a tiny, tiny minority of it.

I've seen very little poetry that was just "a few words tossed together" -- or at least, very little of such stuff that anyone (other than perhaps the author) was touting as any good.

Click to expand...

This. One could say the same about art (and I think it was said here). Some people feel "real" art is the Italian Renaissance. Others like Impressionism and others enjoy Surrealism. Lots of people whine about the state of modern and contemporary art but people did that when Monet and Van Gogh were painting. Time changes the art, not people. In 100 years, the modern poetry that is "words thrown together" could be the poetry being read in school. Tupac was great. Billy Collins is great. It's subjective, like anything else. Lots of critics said Eliot was a hack. Keats died a failure in his own mind. Dickinson couldn't sell poems. Plath was told to quit.

We simply cannot evaluate art now with the same lens, because we don't have rule of time to give us perspective.

Why do I get the feeling that one is supposed to like all poetry or they're considered some kind of neanderthal? Are we also supposed to like all fiction? Poetry is very diverse and yet I see here, as in various discussions of fiction, that teachers are screwing up students and that's why they don't like Poetry, or that readers aren't "dedicated enough" to appreciate Poetry. There doesn't seem to be any room for personal likes and dislikes; if you don't like a particular type of poetry, it's the "fault" of teachers and/or defective concentration/intelligence. Speaking as if poetry was one homogenous entity that cannot be divided by type or style is pretty meaningless.

shadowwalker said:

Why do I get the feeling that one is supposed to like all poetry or they're considered some kind of neanderthal? Are we also supposed to like all fiction? Poetry is very diverse and yet I see here, as in various discussions of fiction, that teachers are screwing up students and that's why they don't like Poetry, or that readers aren't "dedicated enough" to appreciate Poetry. There doesn't seem to be any room for personal likes and dislikes; if you don't like a particular type of poetry, it's the "fault" of teachers and/or defective concentration/intelligence. Speaking as if poetry was one homogenous entity that cannot be divided by type or style is pretty meaningless.

Click to expand...

I can't imagine where you're getting the idea that anyone is saying one is supposed to like "all" poetry. I'm quite frankly a wretched snob about what I do and don't like.

But a blanket statement about all modern poetry being just a jumble of words carelessly thrown together is wildly inaccurate in any number of ways.

I don't like "all" poetry any more than I like "all" art or "all" music. But I cannot think of any art form, including poetry, where one can, with a sweep of one's hand, dismiss everything past a certain era or not in a certain style as garbage. Particularly if one has not spent much time reading, listening to, or looking at that art form.

You are perfectly free not to read modern poetry, or not to enjoy it. But to dismiss it all as just a carelessly thrown together jumble of words shows me you haven't read much of it.

Eta:

To draw a musical analogy:

It is perfectly legitimate to say "Jazz does not appeal to me; I prefer the structure and formalism of classical music." We are all entitled to like what we like.

But if you dismiss jazz as "nothing but noise and dischord and musicians blurting out notes any which way and it doesn't require any skill," you would be displaying that you don't know very much about jazz.

Eta:

Here, you did not simply say you prefer poetry with meter and rhyme. You made a sweeping and inaccurate statement about all poetry past a certain era.

For one thing, if you think all modern poetry contains no structure or rhyme, you're quite wrong. For another, if you think all older poetry rhymed and had regular meter, you're wrong.

And if you think that all poetry that does not have regular meter and rhyme is just "thrown together," and takes less work and skill than poetry that does have regular meter and rhyme, you are wrong.

I could write all of my posts on AW in regular meter and rhyme if I took it into my head to do so. It comes quite easily to me. That alone, frankly, doesn't impress me much in a poem.

I both write and enjoy formal poetry as well as free verse. But when I choose not to use formal structure, it is not because I can't -- it is because I choose not to do so. You might not like the results -- that is your prerogative -- but that doesn't mean the poem is just a mish-mash of thrown-together words.


Eta:

I will grant you that some poorly-written free verse is a mere blurt of words on a page. But so is some rhyming poetry. Crap exists, in every art and in every era. Unfortunately.

shadowwalker said:

Why do I get the feeling that one is supposed to like all poetry or they're considered some kind of neanderthal?

Click to expand...

because they are. and the irony is they're such neanderthals that, not only can they not understand that all poetry is the sunday dinner flatulence of god, they don't even know they're neanderthals.

even so, i don't blame them because they're adorable, throwing rocks at trees and stuff.

William Haskins said:

because they are. and the irony is they're such neanderthals that, not only can they not understand that all poetry is the sunday dinner flatulence of god, they don't even know they're neanderthals.

even so, i don't blame them because they're adorable, throwing rocks at trees and stuff.

Click to expand...

I suppose they're cute enough, but they make such a horrid mess of the lawn. And they're hell on furniture.

and don't get me started on denisovans.

Ugh, how they shed. And no appreciation at all for meter.

Barbecue of the Barbarians, or
This Is Why We Can't Have Nice Things

I pick my teeth
with your bones
who would call my work
stray or ill-gotten.

Your flesh is charred
toothsomely grilled
and gnawed with relish
by the partygoers of truth.

Replete, we rest
and suck the sauce,
the sweet success
of survival.

They smell all right while they're cooking, but I've always found them a bit too tough and stringy for my tastes.

Perhaps I quit reading modern poetry because all I found were word jumbles. But of course, because I don't know all the terminology, I'm not qualified to say what I like.

Carry on...

You see, William? I told you it was a bad idea to bring up denisovans.

I'm not into poetry much because I may be simple minded (or literal? Straightforward?) to understand the meanings or whatever metaphors of poetry.

It's why I don't read literary novels, either. I don't like to think too much or analyze my entertainment. My brain is already fried from a lifetime of school and work (where I work is...at schools, lol).

I just can't wrap my brain around poetry, or some types of literary stories, and it can get very frustrating when that happens. I would like the sound of some of them, but then I sometimes get confused on what is the meaning or metaphor (if it has any) the poem is trying to communicate to me. I don't like vague or obtuse stuff.

The closest to something similar to poetry, (albeit more straightforward or literal in meaning), that I like are mostly song lyrics set to music or sung in a catchy or lovely musical way.

(I'm more into novels, video games, or TV/movies. You know, typical short attention span, young adult stuff.)

Poetry is not bad. It's just not what interests me, most of the time. *shrugs* (And I sometimes get antsy/anxious if I don't understand their meanings, lol.)

shadowwalker said:

Perhaps I quit reading modern poetry because all I found were word jumbles. But of course, because I don't know all the terminology, I'm not qualified to say what I like.

Carry on...

Click to expand...

bunny-gypsy said:

I'm not into poetry much because I may be simple minded (or literal? Straightforward?) to understand the meanings or whatever metaphors of poetry.
<snip>

Click to expand...

I'm very happy to see voices like yours in this discussion. I'm no expert on poetry, but I feel comfortable enough with it to admit I don't like this poem, or I don't understand that one. It will always be that way.

I subscribe to the Poem-A-Day email from poets.org, and... well, quite often, I'll read one and think, "this is crap" or, "I just don't get this at all".

But often, I'll think, "I love this one", or "that's wild -- how did she come up with that?", or, "I'd like to write something like that".

I love music - love it to distraction. And some of it, I just can't abide listening to; there's no way I'd expect a listener to love every piece of music she hears.

Why we should expect readers to love, or understand, every poem, I don't know.

In 1980, I was in high school in the Midwest. Where I lived, you were either into Rock, or Disco (or the deep brew of Soul and Funk that lay beyond). Top 40 didn't count, and Jazz and Blues were nowhere to be seen.

One day, my local record store had a new display for a new record: The Specials. Black and white (in format and in personnel), the band dressed in suits and porkpie hats. Nothing like anything we had. I bought that album, and it lit me up -- this was fun. There was other music out there! That was a big moment: I thought I'd heard it all, but I hadn't even started.

Sometimes, a poem will spark something like that moment in me - it's not something I'm supposed to like, but I just do. I don't need a rosetta stone to figure it out, but it challenges me - it's just beyond what I can grasp.

That's something that I hope you find from time to time in poetry. Among the ones that do nothing for us, if we stick around, we'll find our own sublime moments now and then.

Or something. Anyway, thank you for posting -- if it's all just People Who Love Poetry, why bother?

bunny-gypsy said:

I just can't wrap my brain around poetry, or some types of literary stories, and it can get very frustrating when that happens. I would like the sound of some of them, but then I sometimes get confused on what is the meaning or metaphor (if it has any) the poem is trying to communicate to me. I don't like vague or obtuse stuff.

Poetry is not bad. It's just not what interests me, most of the time. *shrugs* (And I sometimes get antsy/anxious if I don't understand their meanings, lol.)

Click to expand...

I think many many people (perhaps the "Most People" in the title of this thread) would agree with this. I know my husband would. It took me years to figure out I was torturing him by excitedly reading my newest poetic discovery to him. One day, right after I sat down next to him with shining eyes and a Mary Oliver book, he blurted out without thinking, "Oh please don't make me read right now." And in that moment (okay, after recovering from my brief pity party), I realized that poetry just didn't speak to him like it does to me. And just like PoetinaHat said, I cannot deny the millions and gajillions of times this has also happened to me - it usually goes something like this: I open an anthology or journal or website, and begin my frantic skimming for a poem that jumps out at me. And the reason said poem does jump out at me is that something about it makes sense to me. So I can completely understand those who say poetry, some kinds or all kinds, just doesn't speak to them because I experience this all the time, and when I do, I do make myself do a quick second read, but if there's still no "click," I move on. The more I've become interested in being a better poet myself, the more I force myself to go slow and spend time on poems I normally wouldn't, but that's because I have this ulterior motive to understand poetry in general, not because the poem itself is speaking to me.

Yes, it is sad to think that poetry doesn't appeal to "most people" simply because they don't want to spend time using their brains. But I'm not sure that's completely how I would describe my own experience in rejecting certain poems, or being uninterested in exploring them very far. In those moments I am actually actively seeking some intellectual connection, but that poem is just not giving it to me, for some reason definitely related to me, not the poem.

I'm risking exposing my ignorance here, but isn't history full of moments in which wordy intellectual-types are viewed as marginal, and the masses are seen as less interested in "brainy" wordy stuff and more interested in fun and less wordy kinds of entertainment? I'm thinking of Gladiators, novels and fiction writing in general (in which the most widely read genre to my knowledge has always been romance?) obviously radio, tv, movies. In other words, isn't this just the way it's always been? Most people would rather play than think? And if so, can't we use that as our excuse to relax and not worry about the death of poetry, but just enjoy each other's company in this poetry loving bubble?

--> ETA: I can't quite edit the presumptuousness out of my last paragraph there! I don't at all mean poetry-loving people are smarter, or better. My husband is not a poetry loving man yet he is waaaay smarter than me in many areas. I think I am just trying to wonder about whether the idea of sitting down to read something complicated (ie poetry, literary fiction, etc) has always appealed to fewer people than the idea of going outside, reading something quick, building things, or being entertained in ways that don't involve reading complicated things.

Smirkin I think those are very good points. Taste varies widely as far as enjoyment goes. This gets complicated for poetry because there are so many "shoulds" that seem to be attached to it. Not that many people get the same kind of chastisement for not liking rock climbing or football or computer coding or gardening. But there is a kind of cultural low-grade "poetry shaming" that goes on. Where it comes from I don't really feel I know.

And then there are creative explosions like this one:

http://www.theguardian.com/books/sh...message-power-public-poetry-robert-montgomery

He has been called a vandal, a street artist, a post-Situationist, a punk artist and the text-art Banksy. Scottish poet Robert Montgomery has consciously made an “awkward space” for himself in between artistic categories – and he thoroughly enjoys it. His work puts poetry in front of people in eye-catching visual formats: from advertising billboards he has covered with poems, to words he has set on fire or lit with recycled sunlight in public spaces – including the Sussex seafront and a Berlin airport. Recently, he has been working on today’s World Poetry Day “Pay with a poem” campaign, through which customers can get coffee in exchange for poetry in cafes across the globe. Montgomery will then collect the public’s poems to create an installation in a secret location.

Click to expand...

It's a fun article and an inspiring one. I love the idea of billboard poems. And these are impactful ones.

but "poetry" is no more monolithic than is any other art form. it's interesting that we take for granted that some people get poetry or like poetry as a categorical.

most everyone i know has tastes in music, film, art, etc that includes certain genres/approaches/movements/subjects and excludes others. it's rare that anyone categorically states that they don't "get" or "like" music or movies.

our culture just has an easier time lumping all poetry into the type of poetry that, at one point or another, turned them off.

Smirkin said:

I'm risking exposing my ignorance here, but isn't history full of moments in which wordy intellectual-types are viewed as marginal, and the masses are seen as less interested in "brainy" wordy stuff and more interested in fun and less wordy kinds of entertainment? I'm thinking of Gladiators, novels and fiction writing in general (in which the most widely read genre to my knowledge has always been romance?) obviously radio, tv, movies. In other words, isn't this just the way it's always been? Most people would rather play than think? And if so, can't we use that as our excuse to relax and not worry about the death of poetry, but just enjoy each other's company in this poetry loving bubble?

--> ETA: I can't quite edit the presumptuousness out of my last paragraph there! I don't at all mean poetry-loving people are smarter, or better. My husband is not a poetry loving man yet he is waaaay smarter than me in many areas. I think I am just trying to wonder about whether the idea of sitting down to read something complicated (ie poetry, literary fiction, etc) has always appealed to fewer people than the idea of going outside, reading something quick, building things, or being entertained in ways that don't involve reading complicated things.

Click to expand...

And again - there are different poems, just like there are different novels. Why is that so hard to accept? Why is it that because we don't like certain kinds of poetry, we're supposedly only interested in the "easy stuff"? Just like saying we like light reading is interpreted to mean we NEVAH EVAH read "heavy stuff". Why does it always boil down to all or nothing? Good grief, people. I've read book-length poetry that I had to be totally into to keep up with - and I've tossed one pagers that were no heavier than Mary and her lamb. And guess what? I've done just the opposite as well! OMG

"A" doesn't like what "B" does - that doesn't mean "A" is only into "quick" or simple things. It means they just don't like what "B" does.

God's fartsack aside, poetry is there when and if you want it. The mandate is simply for it to exist. Poetry doesn't care if you read it or not. Poetry is the art of poeting. It dies once its dispelled. What poetry readers are reading is the dead breath of thought. They need not read it if they desire not to. Maybe this isn't God's fartsack aside. You either smell a fart or you avoid it. The fart just is.

William Haskins said:

because they are. and the irony is they're such neanderthals that, not only can they not understand that all poetry is the sunday dinner flatulence of god, they don't even know they're neanderthals.

even so, i don't blame them because they're adorable, throwing rocks at trees and stuff.

Click to expand...

...and voting for Donald Trump.

Even if, somehow, Poetry (of any or some kind besides pop-song lyrics) became chic or (god forbid) wildly, virtually popular, and I personally became modestly successful in my work (& could travel to visit some AW pals & then return to my beach-side home where would reside a lovely yellow Lambo & a frolicking black lab) as a poet, I would rue the day, I would, because (most Likely) if poetry were popular it would become totally fucked (for the most part - perhaps small enclaves of the real thing would survive) just as all the others arts have become, so I'm OK with most people not liking poetry (of most kinds - strange how many folks speak of the humble Haiku with great affection) and when I do meet someone who genuinely likes poetry, I usually get along fine with them, and often come to form strong bonds with them. On the other hand, if "most people" somehow underwent a radical change and the very fabric of personhood somehow became enmeshed in the delicate strands of poetry without damage or harm to present & future poetry (or if indeed it managed to survive the likelihood of frequent flashes of pop culture status shifts) that might be a fine world in which to spend my golden years. But not likely, so I guess I won't be gettin' that Lambo.

I don't hate poems. There were some good ones I've read back in middle school/high school. It's just a medium that doesn't satisfy me as much as other mediums.

I don't often like novellas, either. They feel like they're over too soon, and short poems make me feel the same.

Random question: Are classic stuff like the Odyssey, Grendel, and Paradise Lost (Dante?) considered poems? I've read excerpts of those in high school and enjoyed those, (though I did need the school book and teacher to help translate or interpret some stuff for me). I like narrative stuff. I like, well, stories. I'm not fond of the abstract stuff.

I also liked this one famous poet's poems about spring and countryside. (Can't remember his name right now.) I wished they were longer, though. They're more description-type poems with pretty descriptions. (They felt "pretty" to teenage me, lol.)

So, I don't hate all poetry. I just have a harder time finding stuff I can understand and can feel satisfied with. I like more straightforward stuff, in general.

Sometimes, I can't feel anything about some poetry. There are also times when I've been told I was supposed to feel something about a particular poem, and I just don't feel anything about it...

And sometimes, some poetry (and types of litery novels) make me feel stupid. And I don't think I'm stupid. At least, I don't believe I'm stupid. (I was on Honor Roll a few times in school, and almost did well in college, though I wasn't a super-A+ student.)